White Warlock

ahem There is the old belief that if you keep things within your own school, you will have the advantage of surprise, in that your actions committed to an opponent will be indefensible because of their ignorance of it. I am full aware of this belief, as it was a very popular, and effective, approach used by the Japanese and, even earlier, the Chinese. However, these are very different times. Secrets are no longer secret, and no system can ensure that things stay within their system. Nowadays, systems cannot merely succeed by tricks... they must succeed by being effective as well. Btw, are you aware of the origins of the bushido code? That it was originally created by the bureaucrats as a means to 'control' the warrior class? There's more to it, but i think if you do some research on the origins, with this basis in mind, you'll find your studies somewhat enlightened.

I find it very difficult to determine what i obtained from the martial arts, other than injuries and a lot of damage skills. I am not sure whether, without the martial arts, i would have ventured into studying beliefs, communications, human behavior, anatomy, or all the other things that the arts touch upon. Because of this, i don't feel 'comfortable' giving the martial arts credit for my simply growing up.

Yes, not legitimate. He made plenty of money off his books though. Well timed, as he targeted his books to hit the market during the ninja craze. Unfortunately, it looks as if he wasn't too keen on legal contracts, since he's claiming to have been taken-in by Paladin Press and other publishing companies. As to his background, he is an American. His real name is Radford W. Davis and he lives in Florida with his daddy (want the exact address?). His books are loaded with entertaining, but incorrect information. Budo taijutsu schools refer to him, and some others, as 'pretenders.' I visited his website and found no substance, and a lot of unhealthiness. In a list he has there, he demonstrates tremendous unhealthy hostility towards some publishing companies. It looks to me as if he was either robbed by them, or more likely, he failed to pay attention to the details of his contracts. In any event, he runs on about these companies, and some individuals, with quite a bit of "can't let it go." I don't believe he's anywhere near the 'true path' he purports to have attained. On his website, he claims to have fought a Phil Tempel, of which i've never heard of, and that the video is at https://www.fightauthority.com . I contacted them, and one moderator informed me the video is no longer available. But, he did have this to say about it: Moving on... No... his book presents many 'Chinese' names for things and he at one time claimed that it was a sort of 'Chinese' ninjutsu, taught by a Japanese guy named Shendai, which... of course, makes no sense. It also makes no sense that he is unable, or unwilling, to provide any information on this teacher. His response to such, as noted on his website: Well, the difference it makes, is that he claims to be a practitioner of ninjutsu and that he presented many books purporting to be legitimate. Moreso, his gripe with Paladin Press should be no less than our gripe with him, in that he sold products under false pretenses and many people purchased, and still purchase, said products under the belief they were/are getting legitimate information. Additional information can be obtained at his website: http://www.ashidakim.com And at wikipedia.org: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashida_Kim Definitely need to visit wikipedia's discussion archives, where you'll find plenty of additional links for further research: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ashida_Kim/archive1 Also, take a notice of this: http://www.ashidakim.com/proof.html In this particular article, on his own site, Chris Hunter claims that Ashida Kim surreptitiously partook in a Stephen Hayes seminar. Yet the thank you letter to Stephen Hayes was written by Chris Hunter, not Ashida Kim. In this article, Chris Hunter speaks of Ashida Kim in the second person, while in truth... they are one and the same. Chris Hunter is one of Mr. Davis' aliases, as is Ashida Kim. My sources were many, but most notable were Davis' own books and the 'many' articles presented at https://www.wikipedia.org . Btw, i also own a few of his books. They are a mish mash of 'borrowed' information and mock techniques. I suppose sometime later i'll start up book/video reviews. Something this community talked about awhile back, but it never got the community support it needed (hint hint).

I don't do windows, does that count?

Oh, i don't know. I've fought a few dummies before. For that matter, i've trained with some too. Anyway, in truth i don't think i would 'want' a grappling dummy. I'm sure one day i would come home to find out one of my friends had dressed it in lingerie and painted its lips.

not knowing which style in particular you are referring to as your style, i would nonetheless say bo is a good base and is all-around applicable, whilst the other two have less 'modern-world' application. I do think you should learn the others at a later time.

hmm... i had this problem when i was a kid, not an adult. Mayhap you be overgeneralizing?

umm... "Soke John Casarez created Manabi-Masho jujitsu in 1968"From his website. umm... "Soke John Casarez and his system Manabi-Masho Jujitsu is one of the many systems "recognized" by the Imperial Temples of Japan through their recognition of the World Head of Family Sokeship Council." This quote, also from his website, indicates it is not a direct recognition, but an indirect recognition. I am not aware of how many recognized in this fashion but i do ask... what exactly does this indirect recognition mean? A substantiation? An inference? Umm... "NOTE-- The following is considered a part of Japanese warrior training, the School of Manabi Masho Jujitsu and the Federation of Manabi Masho does not teach any examples of Bushido. It is the opi(ni)ons of the Admin of this website to place this page on the website, because possiably in the future a code of Bushido will be introduced into our system."Again, from his website. Apologies

Hmm, thank you. wasn't aware of this.

i was wondering when you'd show up.

Ouch! hehe

Not without a body count. http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v283/White_Warlock/violence_03.gif

*blushes* part deux Agreed. On the other hand, if a fight goes as it should, things get busy immediately, so 'figuring out' your opponent isn't all that good an idea. What i mean is, in a spar, in a competition, time is taken to 'analyze' your opponent so you exploit their flaws, enter between their rhythm. But, in a 'real' confrontation, unless both participants are somewhat afeared of each other, the action is going to be fast, heavy, and immediate. Under such circumstances, i think focusing on your own game is the better route. At least at the onset and if things don't drag out. I guess what i'm saying is, i don't disagree with Mr. Lee on that, but i also don't think it's high priority. The guy definitely had spunk.

although It has influences from wrestling and sambo it is primarily based on Judo. Well, sambo was derived from judo and wrestling really, and was created around the same time, so bjj didn't obtain influence from sambo, but, yes... judo was bjj's base. While judo focuses heavily on takedowns, bjj poured its attention to groundwork. In that regards, they're both really just specializations of the same system.

*blushes* I agree with you KempoTiger. I believe that's what he thought as well. But, i don't believe he was right. One needs a base of knowledge in order to have a clue in the first place. Learning a style, or many styles, is the best means to obtain that base, or foundation. Earlier physicists have presented theories and a clarification of existing laws that allow for modern physicists to make 'short-cuts' to their learning ventures, and thus come up with more complex theories and more detailed analysis of existing laws. If the work of earlier physicists was not available, learning would be a far greater task. Each and every experiment and mathematical computation that had been done over the past 3000+ years would have to be reconceived, and then recommitted... with no basis, no foundation. It is said that when you obtain a black belt, you have gained mastery of the basics. I believe Bruce Lee failed to understand this, or at least focused on those persons who failed to see beyond that in their own studies. I believe this not merely because of what i've presented already, but because of some the comments in his notes. One in particular discusses the difference between the 'mechanical' fighter and the 'intelligent' fighter, wherein the mechanical fighter has a preset series of responses to a set of actions and the intelligent fighter is not set, thus able to change and become less predictable. In that set of notes, it falls to me the awareness that he looked at a mechanical fighter, a technician, as someone who is steadfast and rigid in their actions and applications. In contrast, where the mechanic would have one or two actions to handle a particular assault, the intelligent fighter would have many. Now, i'm aware that he said 'none,' but i come back to something i've mentioned in this board a year ago or so, which is that he didn't have 'no' background. He had a background, a series of actions and techniques that he had ingrained within himself through repetition, both physical and mental. When he 'responded' to an attack, in order to ensure it was virtually instantaneous, he had to develop his muscle-memory, to know what to do and when to do it. A set series of 'mechanics' to ensure dominance, lest too much time is wasted... 'thinking.' In Bruce's analysis, being intelligent means to not be rigid and predictable. But, there is no way to be unpredictable to all persons. All one can do is obtain mastery of a multitude of 'actions' so that one can fluidly 'change' from one 'style' to another whilst looking for the area of ignorance of one's opponent. Like a debate, one cannot argue about something one is ignorant of, and thus one cannot pose a defense or a reasoned counter-argument. But, and here's where i pose my revolutionary thoughts... like a debate, one doesn't need to be knowledgeable about a topic in order to win. Fallacious reasoning is the process of argument utilizing false logic, and in many cases it is very effective. Some examples of this are that of being offensive to the person, tossing out derogatories, essentially attacking the person rather than the argument and by doing so, throwing them out of their game. Others are that of presenting straw men, so as to direct the debate to an area of knowledge that the opposing debater is ignorant of as well. In doing so, the playing field is made equal. My revolutionary thought... is to study fallacious reasoning... and in doing so, obtain a 'transference' of understanding to that of the martial arts. I believe they are 'directly' applicable for those moments when you are presented with an opponent utilizing techniques you are ignorant of, or fighting in a phase that is not your strong suit. For when you are 'out of your game,' you're simply going to have to get 'into' your game, get your opponent out of his game, get your opponent to not be able to focus on his game, or one of the many other 'transferences' of fallacious reasoning into that of the martial arts. Open up a new topic maybe?

ooo look, he did it again!

ugh, this whole talk about paying fees to take a belt test gives me the willies. Of the schools i've been in that had belt rankings, i don't recall one that 'charged' for testing.

oi, totally different. the foundation for isshinryu is a hybrid of shorin-ryu and goju-ryu, both Okinawan te. The foundation of bjj is that of judo, which is in itself a hybrid of tenjin-shinyo jujutsu, kito jujutsu, and a few others.

Hmm, let me add to that list: Gracie jujutsu 1925-35 kajukenbo 1947 sambo 1923 small circle jujutsu 1950 That's right, Gracie jujutsu (aka: bjj), arguably the most 'tradition shattering' of systems, was founded years before Bruce Lee was even born. Oh, and it was birthed from Jigoro Kano's judo. Indeed, all four of the innovative systems noted above, and for that matter every system noted in the previous list, were birthed from other systems. In some cases, a hybrid of other systems. One innovative system devised from another innovative system, devised from many other innovative systems, etc ... and so on. The martial arts has been evolving for centuries, adjusting to the times, preferences, spiritual beliefs, technology, and trends.

I didn't say it doesn't have forms. It didn't 'used' to have forms. Now it does, although not all instructors teach the forms, as they prefer the original way it was taught. I tend to agree with them, and find the added forms to be more of a distraction to the san soo training regimen. As to what it is for, san soo is for combat. Not sport, and not merely self-defense. When someone thinks to mug, rape, or kill you, they think like a predator and view you as the prey. San soo's mental training includes turning the tables and becoming the predator, destroying your adversary by making him the prey. It is a ruthless system that many find unpalatable. A note: Not all san soo instructors are teaching 'good' san soo. Just like every other system, there are 'black sheep' in san soo as well. If you go to a san soo (tsoi li ho fut hung ga) school, and the system doesn't feel right to you, it probably isn't right.

hehe

From what i understand, hapkido incorporates moves from Korea's wrestling/grappling system called ssireum (other names for it prior to 1920 were gakjo, gakhi, sangbak, jaenggyo, gakgi, and just plain 'gak').

kyokushinkai karate was informally founded in 1956. He officially named it in 1961. As to the story that is not verifiable, he allegedly fought a middleweight muay thai champion going by the name of "Black Cobra." No evidence supports this, and thus... as far as i'm concerned... it's just another urban legend.

Agreed. Many attribute things to Bruce Lee, because it came out of his mouth, or because it is noted in one of his writings... but he is not the originator of such thoughts, nor even of such words. They can be found in books like Sun Tzu's Art of War, thought to have been written before 400 b.c. which, i'm sure you would agree, clearly predates Bruce Lee. In section six, parts 27-29 of The Art of War, Sun Tzu writes: 27. Now an army may be likened to water, for just as flowing water avoids the heights and hastens to the lowlands, so an army avoids strength and strikes weakness. 28. And as water shapes its flow in accordance with the ground, so an army manages its victory in accordance with the situation of the enemy. 29. And as water has no constant form, there are in war no constant conditions. From what i understood, he gleaned it off of The Art of War. Who said anything about doing that? I have only seen the film a few times, because it's a movie I like. The info I have stated about it, is something that was shown quite obvious through the course of the movie. Relax, I was posing a disclaimer, not an inference. You seem to be the entirely opposite. It sounds like you are an anti Bruce Lee. It would be convenient to label me, but it is not the case. I merely found 'most' of his words to be 'not new.' Rehashed, sold to an eager audience, but not new. This is, in no way, trying to take away what he provided to the martial arts community. Because he was so vocal, so animated, and so personable, he helped to open up the Chinese arts to the Western world. The series he wrote, Kung Fu, had a major impact on many young audiences and had many thinking, "there's more to this than just screaming 'kiaa' and breaking boards." His movies excited many and actually helped to show that there are 'many' types of martial arts out there, not merely karate, judo, boxing and wrestling. I think he's credited with this, but i'm not in agreement that he was the focal point. In fact, these things were happening in the martial arts world long 'before' he entered the picture. The difference is, the martial arts world was much smaller then. And yet, look at this list: aikido 1942 cuong nhu 1965 goju-ryu karate 1929 goshin-jutsu 1952 hakko-ryu jujutsu 1941 hapkido 1940's isshinryu karate 1954 judo 1882 kobayashi-ryu karate (shorin-ryu) early 1900's koei-kan karate 1952 kyokushinkai karate 1956 matsubayashi-ryu karate (shorin-ryu) 1947 matsumura orthodox (shorin-ryu) early 1900's renbukai karate 1950 shorinji-ryu karate 1950's shorinji kempo karate 1946 shotokan karate 1922 shito-ryu 1930 shukokai karate 1950 sosuishitsu ryu jujutsu 1650 tang soo do moo duk kwan 1945 uechi-ryu karate 1924 wado-ryu karate 1935-39And that... is just a very small sample. During the 'first half' of the 20th century alone, far more than one hundred new systems/styles were devised and then popularized. During the 'second half,' probably two times as many... as the martial arts expanded beyond the constraints of the select few. Jeet kune do... was conceived in 1967... and then disbanded in 1972. I think, by the presentation above, we can conclude that Bruce Lee was not the basis for innovative thinking in the martial arts. He merely caused a lot of 'laypersons' to think that he was a revolutionist in the martial arts world. What he was... was the loudest man on the block. Wing chun, san soo, praying mantis, pa kua, hung gar, choy li fut, etc etc... all of these were Chinese innovations. There are always going to be people who become steadfast adherents to a particular style, because they take pride in keeping a particular style alive. In doing so, they honor the progenitors. To dismiss that, and say these people are 'rigid,' is to to not see far enough, deep enough... to see only through one's own goals and intentions, one's tinted lenses. Bruce Lee screamed out for change, when change was already, and 'constantly,' happening in the martial arts. He dealt with only a few Chinese styles, and he found those styles to be too confining. Well, that's why everyone needs to find their own path. What works for the innovator of a system may not work for you, but if you start at nothing, you will arrive at nothing... so you build upon the paths of others. This... has always been the way with the martial arts and it is an injustice to all the great martial arts innovators of the past to give such credit to Bruce Lee. More on topic: Even with Okinawan te created since before 1470, karate was actually more a product of the 20th century, with many Okinawan and Japanese versions being founded between 1900 and 1960. It's important to remember that the Okinawan systems were all 'heavily influenced' by Chinese kung-fu masters that fled from China... to Okinawa. So really, i don't find much 'water' in Bruce Lee's generalizations. It was, as i said before, more a commercialization stunt than anything else.

My opinion on this is... there are too many unsubstantiated stories running around in the martial arts community. This guy beat that guy, this dog bit that cat... there's no proof... just claims. Because of this, i have to grab the skeptic's hat, and say that most of these stories were likely created as a means to 'lift' one style over another, or some such. Anyway, Mas Oyama presented a few unsubstantiated stories of his own, such as the muay thai champion that he was alleged to have defeated. Unfortunately, nobody has been able to present evidence of this champion ever existing...